United States v. Park

Supreme Court of the United States · 1975 · Criminal Law

421 U.S. 658 (1975)

Updated August 1, 2026

Criminal Lawresponsible corporate officerFDCA21 U.S.C. § 331(k)strict liabilitypublic welfare offenseresponsible relationpower to prevent or correct

Facts

Acme Markets operated a large retail food business, and Park was its president and chief executive officer. FDA inspections of Acme's Baltimore warehouse found rodent infestation and food exposed to contamination, and Park had also previously received a 1970 FDA letter about insanitary conditions at Acme's Philadelphia warehouse. At trial, evidence showed Park delegated sanitation duties to subordinates but retained broad supervisory responsibility, and Park admitted he was responsible for sanitary conditions across the company's operations. The jury was instructed to determine whether Park, by virtue of his position, had authority and responsibility in relation to the conditions that caused the violations.

Issue

Whether the jury instructions in Park's prosecution under 21 U.S.C. § 331(k) were proper under United States v. Dotterweich, and whether the Government had to prove "wrongful action" beyond Park's responsible relation to the violation. The Court also considered whether evidence of the earlier FDA warning letter was admissible.

Rule

Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the Government makes a prima facie case against a corporate officer by introducing evidence sufficient to warrant a finding that, by reason of his position in the corporation, he had responsibility and authority either to prevent the violation in the first instance or promptly to correct it, and that he failed to do so. Criminal liability does not turn on awareness of wrongdoing, but the Act does not require the objectively impossible; a defendant may raise defensively that he was powerless to prevent or correct the violation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Blue Harbor Foods operates distribution warehouses across Ohio and Michigan. After inspectors find packaged food being held for sale in rodent-accessible conditions at its Toledo warehouse, the government prosecutes the company's chief executive officer, Elena Ruiz, who had companywide supervisory authority over operations but had delegated sanitation to regional managers.

What must the government prove to make a prima facie case against Ruiz under the governing rule?

Explanation. The rule is that the government makes a prima facie case by showing the officer, because of her position, had responsibility and authority either to prevent the violation in the first instance or promptly correct it, and failed to do so. Personal participation, knowledge, intent, or proof that the corporation was the officer's alter ego is not required.